Maybe if you stop painting infantry with one colour you might understand what I mean.
Your tank is nothing more than a weapon, it will be good at some roles but not others, but at no point should excel more than its counterparts outside of its niche.

Maybe if you stop painting infantry with one colour you might understand what I mean.
Your tank is nothing more than a weapon, it will be good at some roles but not others, but at no point should excel more than its counterparts outside of its niche.

not tanks.. that have class 5 choban armour mesh... something the americans have been trying to get there hands on for years now but the british military will never release such documents

No. I do not agree. It is not true on a real battlefield and there is little indication that it will be true in the future.

If installations weren't equipped with junk weapons they should be able to pop you with one round like a 155mm HE can do today.

If you only want to run tank versus tank. Then you need to find a different game.

not tanks.. that have class 5 choban armour mesh... something the americans have been trying to get there hands on for years now but the british military will never release such documents

My double complex damage modded Wiyrkomi Breach Forge Gun disagrees... violently =.=

No I don't agree

If the only way to take down a tank is with another tank

1) If you are only tanker in match god mode 4 u
2) If other team also has tanks, whoever has better tanks wins
3) Infantry only become good for capping points

4) entire rock paper scissors gameplay ruined
5) Infantry interaction with tanks devolves into hiding

6) World of tanks ensues


Tanks should be a force multiplier
1) 1 tank should not be more effective against infantry on its own, than 1 infantry player
2) 1 tank alone should not be the equivalent worth of more than 1 infantry player

3) Vehicle infantry co-operation should be the main point of a vehicle
4) a tanks role, is not to slaughter everyone and let the infantry clean up the mess
5) a tank guarantees nothing and will only improve chances of success when utilised with a supporting squad

What would anti vehicle weapons do?

are you an idiot!!???

so you want one 100k proto suit to be the same worth as a 2.3 mil isk tank?>>? you nooob go home

BOOOM! there you go i was waiting for someone to say this^^

so what do you think infantry players do?? the best fit logi slayer seems to have the best kdr at the end of the match no matter how many miltia suit blueberrys are thrown at it...

BALANCE IS THERE.

the only thing that should be able to take out a tank is... ANOTHER TANK

do you agree?

No I don't agree

If the only way to take down a tank is with another tank

1) If you are only tanker in match god mode 4 u
2) If other team also has tanks, whoever has better tanks wins
3) Infantry only become good for capping points

4) entire rock paper scissors gameplay ruined
5) Infantry interaction with tanks devolves into hiding

6) World of tanks ensues


Tanks should be a force multiplier
1) 1 tank should not be more effective against infantry on its own, than 1 infantry player
2) 1 tank alone should not be the equivalent worth of more than 1 infantry player

3) Vehicle infantry co-operation should be the main point of a vehicle
4) a tanks role, is not to slaughter everyone and let the infantry clean up the mess
5) a tank guarantees nothing and will only improve chances of success when utilised with a supporting squad

Let me elaborate:

Av takes out Vehicles
Vehicles Take down Infantry
Infantry takes down AV

See ?
Rock/Paper/scissors

But you want to be Rock with no paper.
You want:
GÖªTank kills AV
GÖªTank kills Infantry
GÖªTanks Kill Tanks

I mean, SERIOUSLY, tankers are demented...
I see how you guys can like this idea, but CCP SHOULD NOT LISTEN to any of you. LOL

MAdmen....

Yes please continue to only gleen half of my point. Make assumptions based on your closed perspective. Tell me im a noob based on views you accuse me of having.

However to answer your question directly. No im not an idiot, you obviously have trouble following my argument.

Yes, a tank with out support should not be worth more than a medium suit on the battlefield. Without support he should have the equivalent strength of 1 infantry player.

No alpha, that does not mean a tanker should not be any better at driving a tank, I mean a tank without support should be of no more use than a soilder with an assault rifle.

HOWEVER a tank with good and relevant support SHOULD have the more than equivalent strength of 1 infantry player, so to should the infantry. To put it mathmatically

1 AR == 1 AR
1 TANK == 1 AR
1 TANK + 1 AR > 2 AR

Alpha, yes I do believe a tank is a weapon, it is bought, wielded and operated by a single person. If you want get real technical its actually a drop suit with a weapon nothing more. NO that does not mean I think tanks should require multiple people to run, thats unfair. But tanks are no different to any other suit/weapon combo.

They should excel in their niche and have a prelevant weakness that is not the same combo.
A tanks niche is effectively to be close infantry ground support.

That means drawing enemy fire, ultimately their attention as well.
Suppressing enemy combatants.
And providing both fire support and breaching protection against entrenched locations.

That DOES NOT mean kill every mother-****** you see.

Penetration (total annihilation) kills are not the only way to take out a tank.

A mobility kill: (or M-kill) in armoured warfare is a weapon or vehicle that is immobilized

A firepower kill: damage inflicted by a weapon on a vehicle that destroys its weapon systems, or substantially reduces its ability to deliver weapons accurately

A catastrophic kill, K-Kill or complete kill refers to damage inflicted on an armored vehicle that amounts to complete destruction of the vehicle, rendering it both permanently non-functional and unrepirable
(only option for AV atm besides harassing it)

So before infantry AV can harm tanks by disabling it's movement and/or hinder it's damage output
this is kinda out of the question but, as always, I might be wrong here.

AV should be used to take out retreating tanks (basically a tank with It's mods off)
Coordinated AV 4 guys or more millions into AV hitting the tank simultaneously
AV should give your teams tank the edge it needs to win a tank battle
DS should be able to take out tanks or at least cause a retreat
Tanks should be the primary solution to take out other Tanks

So you actually want this game to be as simple as a game of rock paper scissors? You're deluded.

And why do you believe this?

For sure the best counter for a tank should be a tank.

But the only counter?

I want what you're smoking!




Only saw your conversation after posting, so here's an edit!

Basically, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to suggest that a tank should be worth no more than an assault dropsuit (if you are in fact, as I presume, referring to its combat abilities) considering your quote.

A tank is not like a dropsuit - it's entirely a niche item; it can perform one role, and one role only. In my tank, I can kill (and scatter the enemy, more importantly) more effectively than any protosuit (and if my blaster had decent hit detection.... but that's another matter ). What I can't provide is any kind of versatility.

In an Assault dropsuit, I can slay, cap points and provide limited support. In a Logistics dropsuit, I can slay, cap points and provide ample support. In a Scout dropsuit... but you get the idea.

A tank should be equivalent to somewhat more than a heavy suit, considering that the heavy suit is primarily a slayer suit (however poorly it performs that role) considering its lack of any support ability (I am referring, of course, to the absence of an equipment slot).

In its niche, a tank should be unmatched. Unlike any other dropsuit, or even vehicle, an HAV is capable of performing only one role to any acceptable standard (in other words, it's not even capable of acting as a mobile spawnpoint, like a DS, or even an effective transport, like a LAV).
There is no legitimate reason why any infantry suit should be able to match the HAV in its niche.

Now, having made that point, I'm going to move on to OP's point.

Even if the infantry has sacrificed its primary weapons slot for an AV-type weapon (or is one of those assholes who primaries grenades as AV) it still has far greater versatility than a tank; in fact, a tank that's fitted for primary AV is generally poor at anti-infantry action, and so has even smaller a niche than under normal circumstances.

I think, for that reason, that the primary AV weapon on the field should be a tank, and that infantry AV should be supplemental (significant, but not catastrophic as it currently is). Certainly I don't think that a single AV player should be capable of utterly negating the entire opposing team's effective vehicle usage (assuming the other side is using equivalently tiered gear).

And I avoided mentioning ISK for a very good reason (though I'd not say no to a significant price drop even were it accompanied by a nerf or two).

For sure the best counter for a tank should be a tank.

But the only counter?

I want what you're smoking!




Only saw your conversation after posting, so here's an edit!

Basically, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to suggest that a tank should be worth no more than an assault dropsuit (if you are in fact, as I presume, referring to its combat abilities) considering your quote.

A tank is not like a dropsuit - it's entirely a niche item; it can perform one role, and one role only. In my tank, I can kill (and scatter the enemy, more importantly) more effectively than any protosuit (and if my blaster had decent hit detection.... but that's another matter ). What I can't provide is any kind of versatility.

In an Assault dropsuit, I can slay, cap points and provide limited support. In a Logistics dropsuit, I can slay, cap points and provide ample support. In a Scout dropsuit... but you get the idea.

A tank should be equivalent to somewhat more than a heavy suit, considering that the heavy suit is primarily a slayer suit (however poorly it performs that role) considering its lack of any support ability (I am referring, of course, to the absence of an equipment slot).

In its niche, a tank should be unmatched. Unlike any other dropsuit, or even vehicle, an HAV is capable of performing only one role to any acceptable standard (in other words, it's not even capable of acting as a mobile spawnpoint, like a DS, or even an effective transport, like a LAV).
There is no legitimate reason why any infantry suit should be able to match the HAV in its niche.

Now, having made that point, I'm going to move on to OP's point.

Even if the infantry has sacrificed its primary weapons slot for an AV-type weapon (or is one of those assholes who primaries grenades as AV) it still has far greater versatility than a tank; in fact, a tank that's fitted for primary AV is generally poor at anti-infantry action, and so has even smaller a niche than under normal circumstances.

I think, for that reason, that the primary AV weapon on the field should be a tank, and that infantry AV should be supplemental (significant, but not catastrophic as it currently is). Certainly I don't think that a single AV player should be capable of utterly negating the entire opposing team's effective vehicle usage (assuming the other side is using equivalently tiered gear).

And I avoided mentioning ISK for a very good reason (though I'd not say no to a significant price drop even were it accompanied by a nerf or two).

Special mesh or not, during the armored push into Baghdad in 2003, the American tanks took hundreds of RPG hits, and the only tank to be disabled was one that was hit in the exhaust grille by a recoiless-rifle. The RPGs only set the bags on their carriage racks on fire.

That said, making infantry useless against vehicles is bad for gameplay, and gameplay>reality.